Anything that can prevent civilian casualties and save lives most be done
What a world where this is a controversial take.
Not so much controversial as just shitty journalism
It says her statement has 77,000 likes, and then gives six examples of people getting angry for no fuckin reason, like they do
Waste of fuckin electrons
Seriously. Two things can be true at the same time. Hamas is a piece of shit terrorist organization that needs to go, and what they recently did was absolutely horrific. AND Israel’s aggressive bombing campaign is hurting civilians and like the US did after 9/11, is radicalizing people and helping terrorists to recruit.
We’ve seen this story play out over and over. The only thing that’s changed is an increasing amount of bodies being thrown into the meat grinder.
That’s just silly. She picked a side; it just didn’t align with some people’s “us vs them at any cost” perspective.
Good for her for yet again standing up for what she believes.
Which side did she pick even? Different groups can interpret her statement differently, I imagine.
Putting 5 bucks on zionists being mad at her for not supporting Israel's right to genocide people
Can I collect your $5?
Because it looks like pretty much all of the comments in the article were the opposite take:
"If you're neutral in situations of injustice, you've chosen the side of the oppressor," said lifeashira.
"Call it what it is a genocide!!" said Afuhana Suria. "Disappointed but then again expected nothing less from the likes of you!!"
"Interesting that even after 3 weeks, you are still choosing to acknowledge Israel before Palestine," wrote KK.
"You've lost my respect," said A.T, while allyroza commented: "You can now stop calling yourself a humanitarian. Shame on you."
Civilians.
She picked the side that has no solutions but wants problems to be fixed.
Who has the solution?
We don't know until the problem is solved, but people who have suggestions are saying more than this person.
Stopping civilian casualties seems like a valid first step, no?
How?
Any sort of ceasefire or halt in the bombing campaign to allow for the stabilization of the civilian population and to give them time to find safer ground seems like the universal first step. The major criticism here is largely the civilian death toll, collective punishment by denying the basic fundamentals to sustain human life, and the inconsistent messaging that's leading to more civilian deaths. Putting those lives over short term victory goals seems the smarter move for a lasting peace.
Yeah. If she said any of that then odds are she wouldn't be criticized nearly as harshly.
She never said bombing should stop, because that would condemn Israel.
she cannot condone "the innocent lives lost in bombing a civilian population in Gaza that has nowhere to go."
"No access to food and water, possibility of evacuation, and not even the basic human right to cross a border to seek refuge," she continued.
"The few aid trucks that are entering are a fraction of what is needed, and the bombings are causing desperate new humanitarian needs daily," she said.
"The denial of aid, fuel and water is collectively punishing a people."
I mean, that's how this reads to me.
Nah. It's like Donald Trump being very careful about his wording because he knows that being honest will result in consequences.
She's saying these things are going on and that they are horrible, but not that they should stop.
Eh, would you and me have gone further? Sure. But she didn't have to say anything and she instead did put her career on the line by saying anything. All those things she said right there are valid criticisms. She even goes as far to mention collective punishment (war crime). This whole second half of her statement reads like "stop" while clearly also not trying to be labeled an antisemite. Is she walking a line, sure, but she also didn't have to say shit and she certainly didn't have to say this.
She didn't put anything on the line.
while clearly also not trying to be labeled an antisemite.
Yeah. She cares more about being mislabelled an 'antisemite' than actually criticizing Israel.
She accused them of a war crime...
I love how not killing civilians is now considered controversial
I read the article expecting some kind of hateful comment, and it turns out she was on the side of civilians over Likud and Hamas - which I think is a refreshingly well thought out position. I'd question whether she is really losing fans overall, or if this is just clickbait. Haters are always going to hate, but just because a few people criticise someone doesn't mean there is a net trend against them.
It is better to lose fans over human lives.
Her losing fans because of her opinion on the subject doesn’t stop people getting killed though
Because Israel doesn't care and they have a country that supports their acts.
Just because a lot of people are interpreting her statement as supporting "their" side (when it's a neutral statement about civilians in general), and as a result thinking that the people triggered by her neutrality must be from the "other" side - I'd encourage actually reading the article to see what position was generally the one upset about her statements, as it's the opposite group of whom many here are assuming.
What else do you expect from the rabid cesspool that is Twitter-formerly-known-and-always-will-be-known-as-Twitter.
Huh. I’ve been calling it “loser Elon’s twat palace”.
You all leave that beautiful woman alone!
News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc